Sony Other OS lawsuit dismissed by court

This is a discussion on Sony Other OS lawsuit dismissed by court within the General PS3 Discussion forum, part of the Everything PlayStation; Originally Posted by Ps360
wave enough money in front of anyone and no one would care ("settlements", Bribery, all the ...

wave enough money in front of anyone and no one would care ("settlements", Bribery, all the same thing.)

Legal system has yet to disprove that.

When it comes to the legal process you are, undoubtedly, one of the most ignorant people on this forum.

Settlements have nothing to do with the actual legal process, the whole point of a settlement is that the two parties reach some type of agreement independent of the court and the Plaintiff/Prosecutor drops the suit.

Courts don't force things to go to trial unless both parties want a trial (and by trial I mean standing in front of a judge, not charges/suits)... Thats a good thing btw, its one of those fun little things we have as apart of the Bill of Rights.

Settlements don't always involve money either, sometimes it can involve one party agreeing to go to jail if it means avoiding a more severe sentence (statistically speaking judges are always more harsh at sentencing than prosecutors, but prosecutors are also able to amend the charges, judges rule on whatever is legally acceptable).

Settlements can also vary in terms of who they favor, its all about what the two agree on when talking and who actually has the best argument. For example, one side may know they are fucked and try to get out of spending the money in court (in the US you do have to pay the fees for using the courts in civil cases) while getting a slightly better deal... Othertimes the suit is little-more than an excuse to force both parties to mediate something closer to a middle-ground.

The whole point of a settlement isn't to influence behavior of someone in some unjust or unfair manner (which is what Bribery is), its to come to some type of resolution regarding legal proceedings that may or may not be possible in the court room for the purposes of saving time and money.

Equating Settling to Bribery is probably the single most ignorant thing I've read on this forum that didn't involve race or gender.

Whats funny is this case wasn't settled either, it was dropped. The judge threw the case out, the plantiff didn't take a 'bribe.' So your ignorant comments regarding the process of settlement have nothing to do with anything here.

Last year, when these cases first started cropping up, I said this would be a difficult legal battle because you can't hold a company legally accountable for removing something advertised if there is sufficient evidence justifying its removal. The caveat of this entire legal proceeding was always going to be Sony's justification for removing it... Not to mention the argument of how the plantiffs were impacted by this.

In this case a judge is saying Sony's justification and the plantiff's financial impact were not enough to hold Sony liable.

And this is coming from a court system that typically favors the 'little guy' in these type of big trials against corporations...

Gauss's Piracy Uncertainty Principle: When you pirate a game, that act inherently changes the results of what is to come after your pirating. You can't make any statement with any certainty regarding what would have happened had you not pirated the game.

Gauss's Rating Rationale:
0-1: A game whose very existence is abhorrent to all things creative and intelligent.
2-4: A just plain bad game.
5-6: A game that has alot of mistakes, but is atleast playable and has some enjoyable sections. Good for a rent.
7: An average game, should be played at some point
8: A good game, should buy at some point
9: A great game, day-one purchase
10: A game that goes above and beyond the generation, its transcendent.

When it comes to the legal process you are, undoubtedly, one of the most ignorant people on this forum.

Settlements have nothing to do with the actual legal process, the whole point of a settlement is that the two parties reach some type of agreement independent of the court and the Plaintiff/Prosecutor drops the suit.

Courts don't force things to go to trial unless both parties want a trial (and by trial I mean standing in front of a judge, not charges/suits)... Thats a good thing btw, its one of those fun little things we have as apart of the Bill of Rights.

Settlements don't always involve money either, sometimes it can involve one party agreeing to go to jail if it means avoiding a more severe sentence (statistically speaking judges are always more harsh at sentencing than prosecutors, but prosecutors are also able to amend the charges, judges rule on whatever is legally acceptable).

Settlements can also vary in terms of who they favor, its all about what the two agree on when talking and who actually has the best argument. For example, one side may know they are fucked and try to get out of spending the money in court (in the US you do have to pay the fees for using the courts in civil cases) while getting a slightly better deal... Othertimes the suit is little-more than an excuse to force both parties to mediate something closer to a middle-ground.

The whole point of a settlement isn't to influence behavior of someone in some unjust or unfair manner (which is what Bribery is), its to come to some type of resolution regarding legal proceedings that may or may not be possible in the court room for the purposes of saving time and money.

Equating Settling to Bribery is probably the single most ignorant thing I've read on this forum that didn't involve race or gender.

Whats funny is this case wasn't settled either, it was dropped. The judge threw the case out, the plantiff didn't take a 'bribe.' So your ignorant comments regarding the process of settlement have nothing to do with anything here.

Last year, when these cases first started cropping up, I said this would be a difficult legal battle because you can't hold a company legally accountable for removing something advertised if there is sufficient evidence justifying its removal. The caveat of this entire legal proceeding was always going to be Sony's justification for removing it... Not to mention the argument of how the plantiffs were impacted by this.

In this case a judge is saying Sony's justification and the plantiff's financial impact were not enough to hold Sony liable.

And this is coming from a court system that typically favors the 'little guy' in these type of big trials against corporations...

your post wont make a difference, the article is pro sony and anti his opinion.

your post wont make a difference, the article is pro sony and anti his opinion.

Which is fine, I don't have a problem if PS360 is anti-Sony.

I have a problem when that opinion is founded on an intentionally ignorant viewpoint of something, in this case the legal process.

Gauss's Piracy Uncertainty Principle: When you pirate a game, that act inherently changes the results of what is to come after your pirating. You can't make any statement with any certainty regarding what would have happened had you not pirated the game.

Gauss's Rating Rationale:
0-1: A game whose very existence is abhorrent to all things creative and intelligent.
2-4: A just plain bad game.
5-6: A game that has alot of mistakes, but is atleast playable and has some enjoyable sections. Good for a rent.
7: An average game, should be played at some point
8: A good game, should buy at some point
9: A great game, day-one purchase
10: A game that goes above and beyond the generation, its transcendent.